United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. HICKEY, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplemental
Motion for Summary Judgment of Separate Defendants Preston
Glenn, Ashley Isley, Karen Ghorley, Tommy Miller, Mike Davis,
and Ashley Turner. (ECF Nos. 17, 25). An Affidavit was filed
in support of Defendants' Motion on June 11, 2019. (ECF
No. 33). Plaintiff has not responded and his time to do so
has passed. The Court finds this matter ripe for
April 30, 2018, Plaintiff fell while he was housed at the
Nevada County Detention Center (“the Detention
Center”). (ECF No. 1). According to Plaintiff, the
Detention Center staff found him laying in a puddle of water.
Id. Plaintiff states that Separate Defendants Mike
Davis and Tommy Miller were instructed by Separate Defendant
Karen Ghorley not to move or touch him and to let him try to
get up on his own. Id. Plaintiff states the jailers
instead grabbed his arms and pulled him to a sitting position
“as [he] expressed pain.” Id. Plaintiff
states that the jailers then continued to pull him to his
feet, causing more pain in his lower back and spine
“[a]nd possibl[y] caus[ing] more injury to both back
and knee.” Id.
states that after the fall, he requested medical treatment
and attention from Defendants. Id. Plaintiff asked
other inmates to push a button to reach jailers, but the
jailers did not answer. Id. Plaintiff states that he
requested to go to the ER several times and that he requested
medication to ease his pain, “[b]ut neither staff
member came back to the barracks to assist me.”
Id. Plaintiff states that Separate Defendant Miller
stated “[w]e had an insane emergency up front and was
to [sic] busy.” Id. Plaintiff further states
that he continued “to beg and cry for, over 24 hours of
cruel pain and suffering which continued on for many day[s]
state that when they found Plaintiff laying in a puddle of
water after his fall, Plaintiff was asked if he needed EMS
and he informed them that he did not. (ECF Nos. 28, 33).
Defendants further state that Plaintiff ultimately asked for
assistance standing up and getting into bed. Id. The
Affidavit of Separate Defendant Karen Ghorley states that
“[a]t no point did any individual attempt to force
[Plaintiff] to stand, causing him any sort of pain, nor did
any Jailer willfully ignore any requests for help made by
[Plaintiff].” (ECF No. 33). Defendants also state that
“[a]t the approximate time of this incident, another
detainee at the Detention Center attempted suicide, and the
response to this superseded any non-emergency medical
need.” (ECF Nos. 28, 33).
saw the Detention Center's doctor the next day, on May 1,
2018. (ECF Nos. 28, 33). After this visit, Plaintiff
continued to make complaints to jail administration, and was
informed by Separate Defendant Administrator Preston Glenn
that he would need to fill out a medical request form in
order to see the doctor. Id. The Plaintiff did not
fill out a medical request form until May 15, 2018.
was thereafter taken to Wadley Regional Medical Center in
Hope, Arkansas, on May 15, 2018, where it was determined that
he was suffering from a back sprain-a pulled muscle in his
back. (ECF Nos. 28, 33). Wadley Regional discharged Plaintiff
the same day with no prescription medications or care
instructions. His discharge notes included information on
stretches to relieve pain, and information on using
acetaminophen or ibuprofen when needed. Id. When
Plaintiff filed his final medical request on May 22, 2018,
asking for a specialist to look at his back, Plaintiff was
informed that the Detention Center was following doctor's
orders. (ECF Nos. 28, 33).
Detention Center handbook states that “[a]ll perceived
emergency medical situations shall receive immediate
attention. Emergency medical situations will have priority
over routine Detention Facility operations until the
emergency is resolved.” (ECF Nos. 28, 33). A medical
emergency includes “[a]ny perceived life or health
threatening condition” including, inter alia,
severe bleeding, unconsciousness, head injury, severe pain,
suicide attempt, or severe burns. Id. In an
emergency situation, dispatch is to be notified immediately,
and EMS is to transport a detainee to the hospital.
jailer discovering an emergency situation is to complete an
incident report and record the incident in the jail log and
detainee records. (ECF Nos. 28, 33). Detention Center staff
is to strictly comply with doctor's orders upon returning
the detainee to the facility. Id. As for
non-emergency medical needs, the Detention Center offers
routine sick call. Id. A detainee must make a
written sick call request stating the nature of the problem,
and the jail administrator makes arrangements for the
detainee to be transported. Id. Further,
“[a]ll sick call requests, the result of all
appointments and examinations, prescribed medications,
receipts for medications administered, or any information
pertaining to health care are placed in the detainee's
medical record.” (ECF Nos. 28, 33).
filed his pro se Complaint on June 29, 2018,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis was granted on the same day. (ECF No. 3).
Plaintiff sues Defendants in both their individual and
official capacities. Plaintiff asserts claims for excessive
force, denial of medical care, and denial of due process of
the law. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
(ECF No. 3).
filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on February 14,
2019. (ECF No. 17). The Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment was filed on May 20, 2019. (ECF No. 25).
Defendants' original motion asserts that they are
entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's
claim of denial of medical care. Specifically, Defendants
argue that Plaintiff did not suffer from a serious medical
need and, further, argue that Defendants were not
deliberately indifferent to any of Plaintiff's medical
needs. Alternatively, Defendants argue that they are entitled
to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's medical
care claim. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot
demonstrate that his alleged injuries resulted from a policy
or custom in place at the Detention Center and that,
therefore, his official capacity claims fail. (ECF No. 17).
In the supplemental motion, Defendants assert they are
entitled to summary judgement with respect to Plaintiff's
claims for excessive force and due process violations.
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified
immunity with respect to these claims. (ECF No. 25).
judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, the record “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). “Once a party
moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing,
the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth
specific facts, by affidavit or other ...